At this point is Apple being honest, or is it just creating a narrative it knows the current US administration can use to make US-Euro relations even worse, knowing Europe doesn't want that?

Regardless though, it shouldn't have taken government action to get Apple to a position where it doesn't act as a gatekeeper for how people are allowed to use the devices they bought and own.

Unfortunately we can't get away from the fact that the vast majority of Americans either supported Trump or felt the choice between fascism and more of the same was so trivial that they could sit out the election, not caring who won. 2/3 of Americans were totally OK with Trump winning the 2024 election. And they knew when they voted for him or sat out the election that he was a fraud, he was crazy (the speeches were widely televised), and that he fit the characteristics of a fascist, including an attempt at a coup on January 6th 2021. And they were also happy to see a congress that would support Trump.

So it is, unfortunately, reasonable for the rest of the world to blame us for what happened - not as individuals, obviously, but as a group.

Smallpox alone killed around 400,000 Europeans every year in the 18th Century, so... no, a lack of vaccines was definitely a problem back then.

Yes, they're ultimately a private corporation that relies upon investors to survive. What's your point here?

An HTTP header that you only put when you don't control the content on your website is a burden?

I'd seriously like you to justify that. Your comment looks, right now, like an AI response that saw some key words and just posted a boilerplate response as if I'd suggested you have to make a judgement call.

There's no judgement call. You just add the header if you have content on your website submitted by users or other entities you don't have control over, and don't want to moderate it. Nobody's mentioned "protect(ing) someone else's children" you fucking idiot.

> DEI would be I can't hire someone based on some quality not related to their skill, so need to hire the "most skilled" 'worker for that position, whatever that is.

That's not what DEI is, no.

Please stop repeating right wing propaganda.

DEI is merely about ensuring that qualified people do not have artificial barriers in front of them preventing them from applying or getting through the application process because of their sex/gender, "race", sexuality, etc.

DEI is literally about making sure only the persons qualifications matter.

What's the purpose here? The smart glasses craze (among Big Tech, thankfully not among normal people) at least had the notionally positive idea that a HUD would be useful under certain circumstances.

This appears to exist purely for the purpose of getting people to get angry at one another and to destroy privacy. Why the fuck wear this? The only possible use is to film other people without consent, and do so constantly, not because you want to film some Karen having a meltdown or an ICE Officer... uh, having a meltdown, but because you want to piss everyone off.

This is absurd. Big Tech seems to just want to destroy society at this point. Why? Because we didn't want Bitcoin? Because we thought VR headsets that aren't immersive are impractical? Because we don't want AI in everything? Is this some kind of revenge for that or something else?

It's not entirely surprising that the costs would double when suburbs keep being built with larger and larger homes on larger and larger plots. You're talking about more and more infrastructure needed to support the same number of consumers, and more energy needed to pump the water.

But what a surprise this article blames environmentalists. Because god-forbid the peasants have clean drinking water. Despite the rather obvious fact that blaming the EPA doesn't... hold water. You seriously think adding a million dollar filtration system to a water system that supports 10,000 customers makes a significant difference to the price over 20 years?

Spare us the propaganda Slashdot.

Are you seriously advocating rewarding smokers financially?

And why shouldn't an organization directly accountable to the victims, that ends up being the one that ends up paying for much of damage, and that we pay towards (and therefore pay for the damage if the tobacco companies don't), be the recipient? The fact most voters all suck at electing competent legislators doesn't change the fact the governments are literally the only entities that can use the money in the public's best interest.

I would like to see one minor change to S.230. If you run a website, and you're posting user generated content or other content that you don't want to be held responsible for, you should be required to insert an HTTP header that browsers can be configured to use to block the content, IF you want S.230 protections. If you don't want the protections, you're still fine, you just need to moderate more than you would usually. Apps would also be subject to the same rule, being required to honor an OS flag about S.230 protected content.

This seems a reasonable balance. Forums can still exist, they can just choose between heavy moderation (with posts held in a queue until reviewed), or being blocked by browsers configured by parents to prevent kids from using them.

And it does away with the whole "Let's build a database of adults and what adult websites they access" shit that legislators are so in love with right now.

I dearly want kids to have access to a lot of content that would be blocked under this rule, but I know there's far, far, far, more content that no reasonable person would want their kid to have access to than that stuff. Being able to configure a device and/or a web browser to block content the website/app maker doesn't want to ensure is kid friendly would be a step in the right direction.

Yeah.

I've been following this for a while and I've noticed most of the bugs fit into three categories:

1. "This function uses strcpy which is totally unsafe and could cause a buffer overflow! (two lines before the strcpy is an "if(strlen(...)>=BUFFER_SIZE)" line, it's pretty fucking obvious there's no buffer overflow.
2. "You can use curl to get the contents of /etc/passwd displayed on your screen" - uhm... OK.
3. "This function will bypass its security checks if a dev calls it with the BYPASS_SECURITY_CHECK parameter!" - well, yeah.

You'd be surprised how often (1) appears. The people submitting these bugs don't even do a quick idiot check to say "Is this really a problem? Maybe I should quickly look at the code the LLM found and verify it looks like that." I mean, LLMs have full on hallucinated shit, so why would you NOT look at the code?

And the answer of course is that the people submitting bug reports don't care. They're just throwing things at the wall hoping one day something will stick, and the LLM is churning out chrome ball after chrome ball, and they don't even care the balls are made out of chrome, or care to check.

Yeah, if you want you could organize that and deal with the various business related expenses and taxes that go with it, plus the taking in of money. I'm sure Daniel would be totally happy with you to do that.

Suggesting, however, the curl team should do it is obnoxious. They're programmers, not business people.

Firefox + uBlock Origin still works fine. I'm still unsure why Chrome is so popular, there never was a time when it was better than Firefox.

FWIW though, if you're getting Joe Rogan ads, it's because of your history, probably watching similar content. It is always worth, from time to time, clearing your cookies and logging in again (or starting a new account if they're tying ads to logins, which right now they don't appear to be, but are clearly preparing to do.)

No they didn't, there's a shit ton of prepaid companies around that compete with Verizon and aren't owned by them. Did you mean "Prepaid carriers that were its customers" maybe? As in "prepaid companies that use Verizon as their backbone"? Those weren't ever competitors per-se.

I don't disagree that this is anti-consumer. That said, if you're signing up for a Verizon plan, you'll be paying in a month what a low end unlocked phone costs. Hell, you can buy a fairly nice Motorola for around 2-3 months of Verizon service.

I'm not sure that everyone here is arguing this from the point of view of "The law is just! Verizon should do whatever they want!" anyway, I think many think they're being "helpful" and others are advocating it as a "Stick it to the man" thing. Note how many of the same posts also point out Verizon is ridiculously overpriced.

Right now there's no good reason to get a Verizon phone, and until we can get a decent government in power again, our only option is to hope enough of us see that to drive Verizon into bankruptcy. Alas, I don't think this'll happen in a world where people seem to be becoming more and more collectively dumb and unable to switch their services from bad to less bad. Or even good. So Verizon will probably make billions, with at&t and T-Mobile following Verizon's lead.